State v. Silver, 126 Conn. App. 522

Defendant Mark S. Silver was charged with attempt to commit murder and assault in the first degree after a September 20, 2007 Stratford incident where he allegedly struck the victim with a car and pushed him under a fence.
Witnesses observed the crash and notified police; Grass and Gosselin separately called 911 describing the driver and vehicle, aiding identification of the defendant.
Police later arrested Silver; at Bridgeport Hospital he made incriminating statements to Officer Higgins while not having been advised of Miranda rights.
At trial, the state sought to admit Grass’ and Gosselin’s 911 recordings as spontaneous utterances under the spontaneity/excited utterance doctrine to prove identity and guilt.
The trial court admitted the 911 recordings and denied suppression of the hospital statements; defense appealed challenging both evidentiary rulings.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the hospital statements were not the product of custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and the 911 calls were admissible as spontaneous utterances under § 8-3(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the hospital statement admissible without Miranda warnings?	State argued no custodial interrogation; statements voluntary.	Silver contends custodial interrogation occurred without Miranda warnings.	Admissible; no interrogation occurred.
Are Grass and Gosselin's 911 calls admissible as spontaneous utterances under § 8-3(2)?	Calls describe start of events; spontaneous, unfabricated.	Statements not spontaneous; insufficient startling context.	Admissible as spontaneous utterances.
Did the court adequately establish a startling occurrence and spontaneity for the 911 calls?	Record shows ongoing startling events; urgency supports spontaneity.	Record lacks explicit 'startling occurrence' labeling.	Record supported a finding of a startling occurrence and spontaneity; no abuse of discretion.
If admissibility was improper, was any error harmless given testimonial witnesses?	Testimony corroborated the recordings; error harmless.	Admission could prejudice defendant or rehabilitate witness credibility.	Harmless error; testimony already supported identity and guilt.

State v. Kirby, 280 Conn. 361 (2006) (startling occurrence standard for spontaneous utterances in evidence law)
State v. Torelli, 103 Conn.App. 646 (2007) (excitement and spontaneity test for 8-3(2) ev.)
State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162 (2008) (deference to trial court on excited utterance determinations)
State v. Davis, 109 Conn.App. 187 (2008) (consideration of inability to speak before statements as support for spontaneity)
State v. Canady, 297 Conn. 322 (2010) (neutral, innocuous questioning not interrogation; Canady as dispositive)
State v. Kendall, 123 Conn.App. 625 (2010) (911 recordings admissible; framework for admissibility)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (911 statements non-testimonial as nontestimonial utterances)
State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn.App. 530 (1990) (limitations on spontaneous utterances when emotional distress not evident)
State v. Nelson, 105 Conn.App. 393 (2008) (stress level and spontaneity in 911 call admissibility)
State v. Yednock, 14 Conn.App. 333 (1988) (startling occurrence and contemporaneous statements)
State v. McNair, 54 Conn.App. 807 (1999) (time between event and statement; cautions on reliability)